Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 15 of 16 [234 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 13, 14, 15, 16 Next
Author Message
Ali Taghavi

Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 73

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: IS quantum mechanics a limit cycle theory??

Let's try my question about the following example in R^4:
H=(y-(x^3-x))z-xw

consider the corresponding hamiltonian vector field X_H in R^4 with
respect to standard symplectic structure of R^4 (how many periodic
solutions do exist)?? Now try to construct a Hermitian operator with
H(as usual methods), my question is that what is the operator theoretic
interpretation for the number of closed orbits of X_H...

 Quote: the domain of hamiltonian is even dimensional space! But can Morse theory help to my question, namely is dynamic fix if we do not pass a critical value (However I prefer to not change the main subject of my question, a possible relation between limit cycle theory and quantization) Consider a particle moving in 3 dimensions in the potential V(x,y,z) = (1 - x^2 - y^2)^2 z + z^3 + x^2 + y^2 Note that dV/dz > 0 except on the circle x^2 + y^2 = 1, z = 0, so the only possible closed orbits are on that circle. On that circle there are closed orbits in both directions. Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
Ali Taghavi

Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 73

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:30 pm    Post subject: Re: IS quantum mechanics a limit cycle theory??

May you more Explain on "Physical relevance"? Further in this example
the hamiltonian vector field in R^6 has an invariant torus with
infinite number of closed orbits. I search for an example of an
analytic Hamiltonian in R^2n with a finit number of closed orbits....

Is there is any example of such Hamiltonian, with k number of closed
orbits, what is the quantum interpretation for this "k",after an
appropriate quantization of H! Let's try this question for the
following this question for the following hamiltonian:
H=(y-(x^3-x))z-zw (in R^4)

 Quote: israel@math.ubc.ca wrote: Consider a particle moving in 3 dimensions in the potential V(x,y,z) = (1 - x^2 - y^2)^2 z + z^3 + x^2 + y^2 Note that dV/dz > 0 except on the circle x^2 + y^2 = 1, z = 0, so the only possible closed orbits are on that circle. On that circle there are closed orbits in both directions. IMHO this cannot have any physical relevance, because these orbits are highly _unstable_. Am I wrong? Han de Bruijn .
Robert B. Israel
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:30 pm    Post subject: Re: IS quantum mechanics a limit cycle theory??

Ali Taghavi wrote:
 Quote: the domain of hamiltonian is even dimensional space! Consider a particle moving in 3 dimensions in the potential V(x,y,z) = (1 - x^2 - y^2)^2 z + z^3 + x^2 + y^2 Note that dV/dz > 0 except on the circle x^2 + y^2 = 1, z = 0, so the only possible closed orbits are on that circle. On that circle there are closed orbits in both directions.

I think you may have misunderstood my example. The Hamiltonian system
is 6-dimensional (3 components for velocity and 3 for position),
representing a particle moving in the potential V. The complete
Hamiltonian is u^2/2 + v^2/2 + w^2/2 + V(x,y,z) where u, v, w are
conjugate to x, y, z respectively.

Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
Ali Taghavi

Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 73

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:30 pm    Post subject: Re: IS quantum mechanics a limit cycle theory??

The Hamiltonian vector field corresponding to your H has infinite number
of closed orbits! But my question searched for a hamiltonian with a
finite but non zero number of nontrivial periodic solutions(of
course, it is impossible in 2 dim.) For example how many closed orbits
exist for the following Hamiltonian in R^4 H=(y-(x^3-x))z-xw

Note that the projection in 2 first component is the standarrd vander pol equation.

Finaly : a question about your hamiltonian: as you said there is only
one periodic orbit in (3 dimensional) position space. What is the
Quantum interpretation for this unique orbit (and for this
uniquness)??I mean look at the variable as Hermitian operator....

 Quote: The complete Hamiltonian is u^2/2 + v^2/2 + w^2/2 + V(x,y,z) where u, v, w are conjugate to x, y, z respectively. Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
Ali Taghavi

Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 73

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: IS quantum mechanics a limit cycle theory??

The projection of all closed orbits of Hamiltonian is mentioned by
Robert Israel, is a single circle in 3 dimensional position space.
But the total number of closed orbits in 6 dimension is infinite. Thus
this is not the answer of my Question:"I search for a Hamiltonian
vector Field with a finite (but nonzeros) number of closed orbits) As
an example: What is the number of closed orbits of the following
system (hamiltonian vector field) in R^4: H=(y-(x^3-x))z-xw. The
Hamiltonian vector field is a vector field in R^4 which projection in
2 Dimensional space is the standard vander Pol equation Thank you

Ali Taghavi

 Quote: Consider a particle moving in 3 dimensions in the potential V(x,y,z) = (1 - x^2 - y^2)^2 z + z^3 + x^2 + y^2 Note that dV/dz > 0 except on the circle x^2 + y^2 = 1, z = 0, so the only possible closed orbits are on that circle. On that circle there are closed orbits in both directions. Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
Ali Taghavi

Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 73

 Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:34 pm    Post subject: Re: IS quantum mechanics a limit cycle theory?? "Due to the main subject of this topic I present the following new question(related to the title of this Topic)": Assume X is a non vanishing Vector field on a manifold M,it generates an operator(say X) on functional space C^inf(M),with the standard formule f------->X.f (the derivative of f along the trajectories of X) Does there exist a linear operator S on C^inf (M) such that XS-SX=1 (1=identity) Thank you Ali Taghavi alitghv_at_yahoo.com
Robert Clark
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 129

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Math question about trajectory for beamed propulsion.

I'm concerned with means to minimize the distance from
the launch point to a beamed propulsion craft to so
that the beamed energy reaching the craft is not
diminished too greatly.
Here's the scenario. The craft has to reach a certain
speed in order
to reach orbital velocity. It's on the order of 7800
m/s. I'll just call it
10,000 m/s for simplicity. You also would like the
acceleration not to be too
large The reason is that for beamed propulsion, for a
given amount of beamed energy
transmitted, a fixed thrust is going to be provided.
 Quote: From Newton's equation F=ma, so if you make the acceleration large, the mass, or

let's say the acceleration is kept below 40 m/s^2, or
But then it takes time to build up the large velocity
required. And
traveling at the limited acceleration allowed would
force a long distance to
be used to build up the necessary speed. Indeed for
the space shuttle
for example the distance from the launch pad is on the
order of 2000 km for
powered thrust. This large distance is what I'm trying
to avoid. A few hundred km is
what I'm looking for.
So here's the suggestion. What's really needed for
the beamed
propulsion is keeping the *straight-line* distance to
the craft low. Then what you
could do would have the craft travel in say a helical
path. Then it could be
traveling a long distance, the length of the helical
path, while the
straight-line distance from start to finish might be
low.
Yet this introduces more problems. For when the craft
is turning in
that helical path, it is undergoing acceleration. And
is small, the acceleration could be high, and your low
acceleration
So as a math problem, what I'm looking for is a
trajectory in 3-dim'l space s(t) such that the
magnitude of the acceleration is low, |s"(t)| <= 40
m/s^2, the final speed |s'(t)| is 10,000m/s, but the
curve is contained in a sphere of minimal diameter.
This is a calculus of variations problem, like the
brachistochrone problem, though of a different kind
since it is not an integral that has to be minimized.
Note that without the condition that the acceleration
is limited we could make the straight-line distance
arbitrarily small by making the curve make many twists
and turns while enclosed in a small box.
With the acceleration condition, I'm inclined to
believe you can't do any better than a straight-line
but I don't see how to prove that.

- Bob Clark

[ Moderator's note:
Clearly he also wants the initial condition s'(0) = 0.

- ri ]
John Baez
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 220

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Presheaf as functor

In article <djj3uo\$1ss\$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
joe.shmoe.joe.shmoe <joe.shmoe.joe.shmoe@gmail.com> wrote:

 Quote: One could add slightly modify the definition of a presheaf, starting with a fixed "base" functor R: Opens(X) --> B, and a "projection" functor P:C --> B, and then saying a presheaf into C ("relative to R and P") is a functor F:Opens(X)--> C such that P o F=R. However, this does make things a lot more cumbersome, and I have not seen this sort of thing done anywhere. Any thoughts on this?

What you're suggesting here is okay - and it's just another way
of doing what Roig was suggesting.

Roig suggests that we consider the category of "rings with modules",
whose objects are a ring and a module of that ring. Call it RingMod.
There's an obvious forgetful functor

U: RingMod -> Ring

that throws out the module and keeps the ring.

A "presheaf of rings with modules" is a contravariant functor

F: Opens(X) -> RingMod

and composing with U we get a presheaf of rings

U o F: Opens(X) -> Ring

You're just talking about the reverse process! You're starting
with a presheaf of rings

P: Opens(X) -> Ring

and then you're looking for some presheaf of rings with modules

F: Opens(X) -> RingMod

that gives P when we forget the module:

P = U o F

That's fine too. There's kind of a choice here as to whether you
want to take the presheaf of rings as "fixed", or part of what you
want to vary. The same issue shows up when we consider "bundles over
a fixed manifold" versus "bundles over manifolds".
Vallenstream
science forum beginner

Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 2

 Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:30 am    Post subject: Re: Conjecture Related to Goldbach's Conjecture Thanks, Gerry. I see there is an interesting graph of numbers for Levy's Conjecture--doesn't actually look much like Goldbach's Comet. Levy's Conjecture isn't exactly the same as the one I described, since he apparently doesn't require that the "twice a prime" number be twice an odd prime. I also guess that his conjecture allows the "twice a prime" to be twice the prime that is added to it, to get the odd integer. I don't use that, because it is, of course, simply a multiple of three, which just repeats the odd number rather than being a total with new primes. My idea was to formulate a conjecture that used only the odd primes as factors of the "twice a prime" term, since the same primes would then be available for that conjecture as for Goldbach's--of course, it's impossible to use integer two as one of the primes in Goldbach's strong conjecture, but many odd integers are four more than a prime. Looks like quite a bit of research has been done on Levy's Conjecture, so maybe there is, in the research, some analytical method that I can use. Another interesting "sums of primes" investigation, is the problem of using only primes that are twin primes--which have some unusual properties--as pairs of primes that equal even integers. The two primes, of course, don't have to be the two successive twin primes of the pairs they belong to. I guess the proposition would be, that, at some magnitude, most even numbers above that magnitude are not the sums of two primes that are both twin primes. It's rather interesting that, among small even integers, only three even numbers between 90 and 100 are not the sum of two twin primes. Since twin primes thin out faster at large magnitudes than primes in general do, I have to think that, above a certain number, very few integers are the sum of two twin primes. Would be interesting to see how the diminishing of sums works out.
baez@galaxy.ucr.edu

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 53

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:59 pm    Post subject: Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)

Here are some corrections and clarifications, mostly thanks to a
friend who usually prefers to remain anonymous:

In article <dsirq1\$pjg\$1@glue.ucr.edu>,
John Baez <baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote:

 Quote: MD5 is a popular hash function invented by Ron Rivest in 1991.

This is what it says in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5

with a big picture of Rivest right on top of the article,
but my friend says

"I think it's usually credited to a small set of coinventors,
and I think Ralph Merkle is a coinventor either of MD5 or one
of its immediate ancestors."

 Quote: People use it for checking the integrity of files: first you compute the digest of a file, and then, when you send the file to someone, you also send the digest. If they're worried that the file has been corrupted or tampered with, they compute its digest and compare it to what you sent them.

Of course, if deliberate tampering is what you fear, you have
to send the digest by a different channel than the original file,
or use some other trick.

 Quote: But if you prove that P *does* equal NP, you might make more money by breaking cryptographic hash codes and setting yourself up as the Napoleon of crime.

Or, you could make lots of money by solving problems that nobody
else can solve. This could be a more sustainable lifestyle... but
I wanted to work in a reference to that Sherlock Holmes quote, to
play off against the von Neumann quote.

 Quote: We can define a "random sequence" to be one that no algorithm can guess with a success rate better than chance would dictate.

Here "generate" would be clearer than "guess", since I was
trying to allude to the usual notion of randomness from
algorithmic information theory (in an informal sort of way).

I don't know if there are sequences that no algorithm can generate
with a success rate beating chance, but where an algorithm can do
well guessing the (n+1)st digit after having seen the first n.
Does anyone know?

 Quote: Chaitin has given a marvelous definition of a particular random sequence of bits called Omega using the fact that no algorithm can decide which Turing machines halt... but this random sequence is uncomputable, so you can't really "exhibit" it:

On the other hand, Wolfgang Brand points out this paper:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian/Calude361_370.pdf

where the first 64 bits of Omega have been computed.

(There's no contradiction, as the paper explains.)

 Quote: Then Aaronson gets to the heart of the subject: a history of the P vs. NP question. This leads up to the amazing 1993 paper of Razborov and Rudich, which I'll now summarize.

Here's the paper:

Alexander A. Razborov and Steven Rudich, Natural proofs, in
Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Vol. 55, No 1, 1997, pages 24-35.
Available at http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~rudich/papers/natural.ps and
http://genesis.mi.ras.ru/~razborov/int.ps

Aaronson says it was written in 1993 even though the date of publication
and the date on the paper itself (1996 or 1999, depending on which copy
you look at) are later. I believe him; you have to be careful when using
the /today command in LaTeX, since if you LaTeX the same paper 6 years
later, you'll get a new date.

 Quote: The P versus NP question can be formulated as a question about the size of Boolean circuits - but Razborov and Rudich show that, under certain assumptions, there is no "natural" proof that P is not equal to NP. What are these assumptions? They concern the existence of good pseudorandom number generators. However, the existence of these pseudorandom number generators would follow from P = NP! So, if P = NP is true, it has no natural proof.

Aargh!

In both cases here when I wrote P = NP, I meant P *not* equal to NP.
baez@galaxy.ucr.edu

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 53

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:08 pm    Post subject: Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)

In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0602102025360.19201@zeno1.math.washington.edu>,
<tessel@um.bot> wrote:

 Quote: On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, John Baez mentioned that md5sum was "broken" about a year ago. I just wanted to add: 1. If I am not mistaken, sha-1 and md5sum are different algorithms (IIRC, both are known to be insecure).

Yeah. Here's a nice review of the situation:

Arjen K. Lenstra, Further progress in hashing cryptanalysis,
February 26, 2005, http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/akl/hash.pdf

 Quote: These are huge and wonderful philosophico-physico-mathematical questions with serious practical implications. You mean the Weyl curvature hypothesis? :-/

Heh, no - I mean stuff like whether there's such a thing as a provably
good cryptographic hash code function, or cipher.

 Quote: Joel Spencer, The Strange Logic of Random Graphs, Springer 2001 Here's a thought: "Everyone knows" that if on day D, mathematician M is studying an example of size S in class C, he is more likely to be studying a "secretly special" representative R than a generic representative G of size S. Why? Because the secretly special reps show up in disguise in other areas, and M was probably hacking through the jungle from one of those places when he got lost and ate a poisoned cache.

Interesting.

Here's some more stuff, from my email correspondence.

I wrote:

 Quote: Allan Erskine wrote: I enjoyed week 226! Algorithmic complexity was the area I studied in... Your readers might find "The Tale of One-way Functions" by Leonid Levin an enjoyable read: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CR/0012023 Hey, that's great! I'm printing it out now... Levin and I have argued against Greg Kuperberg and others on sci.physics.research: we tend to think that quantum computers are infeasible *in principle*. As for your "shortest proof of this statement has n lines" question, you may have noticed that Chaitin asks a very similar question about the shortest proofs that a LISP program is "elegant" (most short) and proves a strong incompleteness result with an actual 410 + n character LISP program! Crazy... http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/lisp.html Yes. You might like the following related article below. Best, jb

It's an old one...

From: b...@math.ucr.edu (john baez)
Subject: Re: compression, complexity, and the universe
Date: 1997/11/20
Message-ID: <652c5t\$62g\$1@agate.berkeley.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 291100089
References: <64nsqo\$8rg\$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <346fd86d.1059260@news.demon.co.uk> <64t2ar\$qcs@charity.ucr.edu>
Originator: bunn@pac2
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,comp.compression.research

In article <651lm1\$q3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Aaron Bergman <aaron.berg...@yale.edu> wrote:

 Quote: The smallest number not expressable in under ten words

Hah! This, by the way, is the key to that puzzle I laid out:
prove that there's a constant K such that no bitstring can be
proved to have algorithmic entropy greater than K.

I won't give away the answer to the puzzle; anyone who gets
stuck can find the answer in Peter Gacs' nice survey, "Lecture
notes on descriptional complexity and randomness", available at

http://www.cs.bu.edu/faculty/gacs/

In my more rhapsodic moments, I like to think of K as the
"complexity barrier". The world *seems* to be full of incredibly
complicated structures --- but the constant K sets a limit on our
ability to *prove* this. Given any string of bits, we can't rule
out the possibility that there's some clever way of printing it
out using a computer program less than K bits long. The Encyclopedia
Brittanica, the human genome, the detailed atom-by-atom recipe for
constructing a blue whale, or for that matter the entire solar system
--- we are unable to prove that a computer program less than K bits
long couldn't print these out. So we can't firmly rule out the
reductionistic dream that the whole universe evolved mechanistically
starting from a small "seed", a bitstring less than K bits long.
(Maybe it did!)

So this raises the question, how big is K?

It depends on ones axioms for mathematics.

Recall that the algorithmic entropy of a bitstring is defined
as the length of the shortest program that prints it out. For
any finite consistent first-order axiom system A exending the
usual axioms of arithmetic, let K(A) be the constant such that
no bitstring can be proved, using A, to have algorithmic entropy
greater than K(A). We can't compute K(A) exactly, but there's a
simple upper bound for it. As Gacs explains, for some constant c
we have:

K(A) < L(A) + 2 log_2 L(A) + c

where L(A) denotes the length of the axiom system A, encoded as
bits as efficiently as possible. I believe the constant c is
computable, though of course it depends on details like what
universal Turing machine you're using as your computer.

What I want to know is, how big in practice is this upper
bound on K(A)? I think it's not very big! The main problem
is to work out a bound on c.
tchow@lsa.umich.edu

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 53

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)

In article <dsn2cd\$som\$1@glue.ucr.edu>, John Baez <baez@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
 Quote: Alexander A. Razborov and Steven Rudich, Natural proofs, in Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Vol. 55, No 1, 1997, pages 24-35. Available at http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~rudich/papers/natural.ps and http://genesis.mi.ras.ru/~razborov/int.ps Aaronson says it was written in 1993 even though the date of publication and the date on the paper itself (1996 or 1999, depending on which copy you look at) are later. I believe him; you have to be careful when using the /today command in LaTeX, since if you LaTeX the same paper 6 years later, you'll get a new date.

It probably has less to do with the "today" command than with the fact
that papers in computer science tend to exist in more versions than in,
say, math. The two "official" versions of the Razborov-Rudich paper are
STOC 1994 (conference version) and JCCS 1997 (journal version). However,
I wouldn't be surprised if it circulated in preprint form in 1993, and if
the authors continued to revise the paper after the "final" journal version,
since this isn't uncommon practice.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
DariushA
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 5

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject: Re: Subset Vector Sum

I think the algorithms Victor directed me to will keep me
happily busy for a while.

I will report any possible progress.

Much Regards,

Dariush.

"Victor S. Miller" <victor@algebraic.org> wrote in message
news:dveofd\$2s6\$1@dizzy.math.ohio-state.edu...
 Quote: "Gerhard" == Woeginger Gerhard This is a 2-dimensional variant of SUBSET-SUM (Given n Gerhard> integers a_1,...,a_n and a goal-value b, does there exists a Gerhard> subset of the a_i that adds up to b?). Gerhard> SUBSET-SUM is NP-hard. The special case of SUBSET-SUM with Gerhard> b=0 is also NP-hard. Gerhard> So you should not expect a fast solution algorithm for your Gerhard> 2-dimensional generalization. On the contrary -- just because the general problem is NP complete doesn't mean that your specific instance might not be solved quickly. This is a special case of the integer relation algorithm. For example, look at the following page for a good overview. The Ferguson-Forcade, or PSLQ algorithm might be a good one to use. You can also set this up for lattice reduction and use the LLL algorithm. Victor http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntegerRelation.html
Matt Heath
science forum beginner

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 3

 Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Results for: 'From Commutative Algebra to Functional Analysis' For semi-simple algebras there is a theorem of Johnson that a Banach algebra norm is unique - and hence that being a semi-simple Banach algebra is an algebraic property.
Giovanni Resta
science forum beginner

Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:30 pm    Post subject: Re: A conditional random number generation problem (please help me!)

 Quote: I need to know the formula for the random function that return random numbers in a range of a and b integers [a,b] but that obey on a custom probability (possibly different!) for each integer number on this [a,b] range (of course the sum of all integer number probabilities are = 1!). Finally, what i want is the general function formula that simulate the random behavior (based on a custom probability value for each integer number between the [a,b] range. confuse? i hope not! please help me!!!! what i know so far is that the function formula for generating a "pure" random number between [a,b] range is: rand()*(b-a)+a where rand() return a random number between 0 and 1.

I'm not completely sure to have correctly understood you
question. Anyway...
Here is a very naive apprach that can work, at least
if the interval is small. Maybe if the interval is large
one can think about something more efficient.

I make an example with 4 values, each with a custom prob.,
that can be easily generalized.

Let the integer values be a,b,c,d (they do not need to be consecutive
numbers) and let p_a, p_b, p_c, p_d the probability to
extract respectively a,b,c, and d.
Clearly p_a+p_b+p_c+p_d = 1.

First you build these constants:

P_a = p_a
P_b = p_a+p_b
P_c = p_a+p_b+p_c

then you extract a random number U between 0 and 1, and

if U <= P_a you select a,
else if U <= P_b you select b
else if U <= P_c you select c
else you select d.

I hope this example helps you
giovanni

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 15 of 16 [234 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 13, 14, 15, 16 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:51 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics WHEW! The Real Cause of Global Warming Ed Conrad Chem 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:24 pm Why you can not count real number? cyclomethane@gmail.com Math 13 Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:59 am Real Integral w/ Complex Analysis Narcoleptic Insomniac Math 8 Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:16 pm function semi-algebraic over real closed sub-field? Martin Ziegler Research 0 Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:17 am Signal Nonlocality Real or Imaginary? Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:33 am